Little v. Catania
| Decision Date | 17 May 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 33455,33455 |
| Citation | 297 P.2d 255,48 Wn.2d 890 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | Bryce LITTLE and Willie V. Little, his wife, Respondents, v. Tony CATANIA and Jane Doe Catania, his wife, Appellants. |
Raymond C. Brumbach, Seattle, for appellants.
J. B. Pennington, Seattle, for respondents.
Bryce Little, pro se.
This is an action for unlawful detainer. The defendants were served with a twelveday summons, as prescribed by RCW 59.12.070 and RCW 59.12.080. It stated in part that 'This is an unlawful detainer action for the recovery of the immediate possession of real property * * *' The defendants appeared on March 1, 1955, the return date. The presiding judge set the case for an early trial, and on April 6, 1955, the action came on for hearing. This was in accordance with RCW 59.13.130, which reads, in part:
'* * * Actions under this chapter shall take precedence over all other civil actions.'
The plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that the defendants were in possession of the premises in question, and that they were in default in the payment of rent. Plaintiffs asked for immediate possession of the premises, and that the reasonable rental thereof be fixed at $225 per month, and continue 'during such time as the defendants shall continue in unlawful and wrongful possession of said premises and that said amount be doubled pursuant to statute.' Incidental to ousting defendants from possession, the court was asked to determine the ownership of certain equipment and furniture located on the premises. The statutory three-day notice was neither pleaded nor proved. The trial judge was cognizant of this fact and, at the close of the case, he announced, 'I am treating this as an ordinary lawsuit, even though he doesn't have a twenty day summons, because you gentlemen came in here and did it.' The trial court then (a) held that the plaintiffs were entitled to immediate possession of the premises, (b) determined the ownership of the equipment and furniture located on the premises, and (c) held that $125 per month constituted a reasonable rental for the storage of defendants' equipment located on the premises. The defendants have appealed.
The giving of the statutory three-day notice is a condition precedent to an unlawful detainer action. It is a fact to be established upon the trial before the court may pronounce a judgment of unlawful detainer. In the case at bar, the three-day notice was neither pleaded nor proved; therefore, any judgment of unlawful detainer was erroneous. State ex rel. Robertson v. Superior Court, 95 Wash. 447, 164 P. 63; Davis v. Palmer, 39 Wash.2d 219, 235 P.2d 151. Even if the respondents had complied strictly with the statutory requirements for an unlawful detainer action, it would have been error for the trial court to have determined the ownership of the property located on the premises. See: Provident Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Thrower, 155 Wash. 613, 285 P. 654, and cases cited.
The respondents argue that the appellants waived all defects and invoked the general jurisdiction of the court by making a general appearance and failing to move against the summons or the complaint. However, the appellants were brought into court under a special twelve-day summons, and, in view of the nature of the summons and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
HOUSING AUTHORITY CITY OF PASCO AND FRANKLIN CTY. v. Pleasant
...In an unlawful detainer context, it is the right to possession that is pivotal, not mere present possession. Little v. Catania, 48 Wash.2d 890, 893, 297 P.2d 255 (1956); First Union Mgmt., Inc. v. Slack, 36 Wash.App. 849, 853-54, 679 P.2d 936 (1984); Motoda v. Donohoe, 1 Wash.App. 174, 175,......
-
Stevenson v. Parker
...results in a termination at the end of 15 days.7 Sowers v. Lewis, 49 Wash.2d 891, 894-95, 307 P.2d 1064 (1957); Little v. Catania, 48 Wash.2d 890, 892, 297 P.2d 255 (1956); Davis v. Palmer, 39 Wash.2d 219, 222, 235 P.2d 151 (1951); State ex rel. Robertson v. Superior Court, 95 Wash. 447, 44......
-
Christensen v. Ellsworth
...compliance is a jurisdictional prerequisite. Sowers v. Lewis, 49 Wash.2d 891, 894, 307 P.2d 1064 (1957) (citing Little v. Catania, 48 Wash.2d 890, 297 P.2d 255 (1956)). ¶ 8 Here, Mr. Christiansen mailed and posted the notice to pay rent or vacate on Friday, July 3. He filed and served the s......
-
Housing Authority of City of Everett v. Terry
...Lewis, 49 Wash.2d 891, 894, 307 P.2d 1064 (1957).5 Sowers v. Lewis, 49 Wash.2d 891, 894, 307 P.2d 1064 (1957) citing, Little v. Catania, 48 Wash.2d 890, 297 P.2d 255 (1956).6 Woodward v. Blanchett, 36 Wash.2d 27, 31, 216 P.2d 228 (1950).7 RCW 59.12.030 provides, in relevant part:"Unlawful d......
-
§17.12 - Termination
...133, 149 P. 651 (1915) (ejectment); State ex rel. Seaborn Shipyards Co. v. Superior Court, 102 Wash. 215 (injunction); Little v. Catania, 48 Wn.2d 890, 297 P.2d 255 (1956) (dictum) (personalty). Such questions would have to be tried in a separate action. On the other hand, questions that th......
-
Table of Cases
...review denied, 113 Wn.2d 1021 (1989): 9.7, 10.7(18) Lindblom v. Berkman, 43 Wash. 356, 86 P. 567 (1906): 17.4(2)(a) Little v. Catania, 48 Wn.2d 890, 297 P.2d 255 (1956): 17.12(2)(a)(i) Littlefair v. Schulze, 169 Wn.App. 659, 278 P.3d 218 (2012), review denied, 176 Wn.2d 1018 (2013): 7.2(5),......